Tag Archives: Socialism

Younger Generation’s View Of Politics

I have a sense that the younger generation is more accepting of socalism than the rest of us:

Which, on the balance I guess, shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the brain functions of an individual are not fully formed until sometime after 24-25. Combine that with the constant praise and bubble of “failure-less” living that today’s parents provide, we shouldn’t be shocked to learn that our youngest citizens are fully accepting of the fact that other people should labor for their benefit.

(Reuters) – Finland’s government announced a long-term plan to start scaling back its welfare system, one of the most generous in the world, aiming to preserve its triple-A credit rating in the face of a slower economy and aging population.

The inevitability of the reforms is such that surprise can only be allowed for those who are surprised. With taxes rates that are nearly the highest in the world and benefits that are seen as some of the most generous, it’s no wonder that people feel little reason to work:

Finnish taxes are already among the highest in the world at 44.1 percent of GDP, meaning changes need to come from cutting benefits or encouraging people to work longer.

OECD data shows Finland’s average job participation rate, or the proportion of active workers to the total labor force, was 75 percent last year, lower than a range of 78 to 80 percent among Sweden, Denmark and Norway.

The government’s plan also includes cutting financial benefits for students to encourage them to look for work earlier.

It is also proposing changing childcare leave policies to encourage mothers to return to work sooner.

Under the existing system, parents of children under 3 can take paid leave beyond the initial, parental leave period of 9 months. The planned change would force parents to split the second leave period, drawing mothers back to work sooner but also encouraging more fathers to take leave.

It’ll be fun to watch Finland specifically and the Nordic states in general as they begin to fail under the weight of their systems.

Share this:

The Youtube video is viral, you have to have seen it. I’ve seen it posted at least a dozen times. The one about wealth inequal — yeah, you saw the title.

Anyway, listen to what the narrator says at about minute 1:40 through 2:30

The money line is at 2:25

And let’s distribute it, among our 100 Americans. Well-here’s socialism; all the wealth of the country distributed equally.

Now, for a long time I’ve noticed that the left has critiqued the right for the incorrect use of the term “socialism”. And I’ve largely agreed with them that the term has been used incorrectly. The argument that they haven’t been able to identify a word that means “redistribution of wealth” doesn’t change the fact that socialism really means the state ownership of production.

But this is the first time I can remember an actor of the left using the term in the way someone from the right would.

Share this:

I’m pretty sure this explains a lot. And why I’m continually surprised by conversations that I have with people out and about. America is changing how she views the path to prosperity and security.

53% of democrats have a positive image of socialism. While I’m sure few respondents don’t have an accurate definition of the word socialist or socialism, the idea is the same; “Someone else labors to my benefit.”

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first “Thanksgiving” was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Venezuela’s Amuay refinery explosion is emblematic of the Hugo Chavez curse. The blast hobbled PDVSA’s largest oil processor – as well as killing 39 people. The Venezuelan leader’s policy of placing loyalty before commercial prowess may not have caused the accident. But it has warped the nation’s business ethos. The way he has meddled in the state-owned oil company offers an apt example.

A decade ago Chavez purged PDVSA of 19,000 employees he considered enemies and now rewards political allegiance over anything else. Employees must now devote as much time to political proselytizing as they do to pumping and refining oil. Top jobs typically go to true-blue Chavistas.

As a result, PDVSA is no stranger to maintenance issues from wellhead blowups to oil spills and unplanned shutdowns. And now, at some 2.7 million barrels a day, oil output is almost a fifth below the level when he took office in 1999.

A large part of why I don’t like the idea of too much Government meddling is that it provides too much opportunity for abuse. I’m continually confused as to why those on our left would think that we’ll find angels in government but only devils in a free’er free market.

Recent moves make matters worse. Last week Chavez vowed to strip PDVSA of a seventh of its 70 percent stake in a key oil venture to hand it to another government-controlled enterprise -mining operation CVG. It’s a great deal for the latter. CVG companies consistently lose money, so getting a 10 percent share in 150,000-barrel-a-day Petropiar oil venture will bolster its finances. And it may also help win over CVG’s 9,940 steel workers ahead of the presidential election in October.

It’s explicit. Chavez, and he’s by no means unique, is using his power to buy votes. Capitalism may be imperfect; businesses will fail and people will lose their job, but it’s simply superior to this.

It’s not the only recent example of mind-bending politicking, either. On August 22 Chavez approved a plan to finance unpaid benefits for government workers with petroleum-backed bonds. Workers cannot cash them in for a year, however, and the 18 percent coupon they pay is less than the 19.4 percent inflation rate. But after years of waiting, this transparent play for votes must seem better than nothing to thousands of active and retired public servants.

Share this:

Obama has unveiled his new campaign logo and slogan. I have to admit, I like what Obama has done with both such slogans. In both cases they are but a few words; Hope, Change and now Forward. And more importantly, they are action words, something that we do. However, on the downside, change, like forward, are actions that don’t necessarily mean positive progress is being made. Obama is definitely a change, but I don’t think you’ll find a majority of Americans who think that he has been positive change.

All in all, I think Forward is better than it is worse. At first blush.

I see these from time to time. Mostly on Facebook, sometimes in comments. The gist is that Republicans are seen as Christians. Christians, well, we have our Jesus. And the theory is that if our Jesus commanded that we take care of the poor and the sick, why are we so against things like Obamacare and Medicaid?

Usually the point is made through a drawing, picture or cartoon:

I’m not so tender and fragile that I don’t find humor in this. And the point is not lost on me either. We SHOULD work to make the world better for all of those in it; especially those who are least able to do this for themselves.

That’s where the point kinda ends though. See, the idea that because Jesus would have us do a thing out of love and goodwill is vastly different that thinking we should create a government mandate to require that same activity.

For example, Jesus also commands us to pray like this:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by Thy Name…..

No one seriously feels that we should pass a law that says all of us should pray the Lord’s Prayer. Additionally, Jesus commands us to:

Go, baptize all the nations.

In a similar manner, no one thinks that we should pass legislation requiring all US citizens go and get baptized.

My reaction to these cute and witty injections is usually to take the message to heart, laugh, think of my friend on Facebook who posted it that I haven’t seen in 20 years and move on. Sometimes I need to comment.

I don’t remember when it was that I came across the specific term, when I read about it. But I resonated with it immediately.

In short, it’s the idea that a shared resource made available to the whole of the community will languish and suffer abuse in a manner that would not exist if that same resource were owned and used by a single individual.

The classic example is that of a pasture. Multiple shepherds begin by grazing their sheep in the common pasture. When the shepherds grow their herds, they begin to understand that the pasture will, in time, become over grazed. However, because the pasture is communal there is no incentive to preserve the pasture; if Farmer Johnson doesn’t increase the aggregate herd size by one, surely his neighbors will. In time, the incentive is perverse, the shepherd accelerates the growing of his herd to make sure that “he gets his.”

The tragedy of the commons.

Of course, there are two solutions to this problem:

Privatize the pasture. Assign an owner of it all or simply divide the pasture into plots.

Form a government and regulate it.

I don’t wanna get into the 1’s and 2’s right now. Rather, I’m interested in why the Tragedy occurs to begin with. For example, if we begin the story with a single shepherd and a pasture that he alone owns, he will expand his herd to the size at which the pasture is able to sustain it. At that point he either begins to cull the herd or expand the pasture. Now, we can assume that this shepherd has a family, some old enough to be responsible for work and productivity.

Why doesn’t each member of the family act in the manner described above? Why don’t individual family members engage in the destructive activities of the Tragedy?

Because they have stronger social bonds that hold them together. A family has the ability to shape expectations, to punish members who fail to live up to those expectations. A family can control behavior.

No one minds sharing. Hell, we TEACH our kids to share. However, the unspoken, perhaps even unthought of corollary, is that the sharing is done among a group of people whose actions we can influence.

We are willing to share with those people who would react in the same manner should our circumstances be reversed. That is, I am willing to share my good fortune with friends and family should they be equally willing to share in reverse.

Note, this does not mean they “owe” the sharer. Only that, found in similar circumstances, they be willing to share back. And should they fail, the “social” penalties would be significant. Up to and including exclusion.

We find that socialism or communism works in the family or small groups of communities. But when expanded to the point that social penalties lose bite, those constructs breakdown. They breakdown to the point that people begin to act in rational ways to existing incentives.